Grammar vs Non-Grammar.

[Delectable]

Everyone I speak to about schools speak highly of Grammars. They move house for Grammars and speak proudly of their children's Grammars.

I watched an Episode of Yes Minister and when asked why the govt abolish Grammars Sir Humphrey the civil servant said it's so the govt didn't have to pay Grammar teachers more for the results they got compared to other schools so it was presented as an "all teachers are remunerated fairly" scenario.

So I've been wondering why did the govt ban the creation of new grammars??

@thing47
Actually James Corden went to both. Probably transferred at 16. The Misbourne always had the better 6th form. First secondary to have one.

@Neurodiversitydoctor

The idea that the top set at a comprehensive school can offer the same opportunity for the brightest DC is flawed.

Assuming a normal distribution curve, the range of ability in the top 10% (and the bottom 10% for that matter- often with EHCPs ) is much wider than that in the other deciles. From a logistical POV it makes sense to teach these DC separately. There is also the issue of peer support which they won't have in a similar sized comprehensive.

In a typical grammar, is it not the top 25% who attend?

In my DC’s comp the top set / stream ( different system for different subjects- there is a broad brush streaming structure with an added setting system to lift kids into faster or slower groups as needed) represent the top 20%.

There is a specific set for extremely high flying maths students. Notably this included a student living in care, and two recent immigrants with ESOL, none of whom would have been likely to be put into an 11+ test…but raised the standard of the top 20%!

@Neurodiversitydoctor

The idea that the top set at a comprehensive school can offer the same opportunity for the brightest DC is flawed.

Assuming a normal distribution curve, the range of ability in the top 10% (and the bottom 10% for that matter- often with EHCPs ) is much wider than that in the other deciles. From a logistical POV it makes sense to teach these DC separately. There is also the issue of peer support which they won't have in a similar sized comprehensive.

So are you saying that as long as the top 10% brightest are well served by the grammar system (ie incl sec mods) it doesn't really matter whether it serves the middle 50% well or not?

So the brightest, who are already blessed with good brains must be given provision tailored to their supposed specific needs even if it means that a whole bunch of other kids don't get opportunities to do say single sciences or 2 MFL because with top 25% creamed off there are no longer sufficient kids to support a sec mod in offering those options? (Even though comps can produce kids with straight 8/9s as well as support the 2s,3s,4s)?

It depends I think - DS's school is a SS they need 360 in the Kent test (pass mark 320). I think they are selecting the highest scoring 10% I could be wrong though. The range of ability at his school is huge.

I could see a point if you were to argue for super selectives taking the top say 2%. (I have no idea the number going to SN schools but it will be closer to 2% I would think than 10%). Super selectives do take the brightest without impacting other schools massively.

x-post re SS schools.

So are you saying that as long as the top 10% brightest are well served by the grammar system (ie incl sec mods) it doesn't really matter whether it serves the middle 50% well or not?

The world including schools is geared to serving the middle 50%.

@Neurodiversitydoctor

So are you saying that as long as the top 10% brightest are well served by the grammar system (ie incl sec mods) it doesn't really matter whether it serves the middle 50% well or not?

The world including schools is geared to serving the middle 50%.

I disagree.

In the grammar system the kids who just miss the cut are disadvantaged, especially if they come from less well off families who couldn't afford tutoring. Or even kids who aren't entered because their parents aren't organised enough.

In higher education the brightest are well looked after by Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick, Bristol, whoever.

In work the brightest most qualified get the best jobs with the best pay.

The less bright end up sometimes with highly responsible jobs for very low pay (nursery workers for example).

Ultimately I guess I don't care if Jimmy Bright isn't massively extended up to y11 in school. He can still come out with straight 9s, and then go on to be extended at A levels, degree, PhD. Or he can study extra things out of school, or do extension work in some lessons.

I would rather James Average gets a chance to do triple science or 2 MFL and not be prevented because there aren't quite enough able ones left in their school to do it.

Plus it wouldn't hurt for Jimmy and James to have PE and drama together in y7-9 together with Jim Struggler.

@TizerorFizz

As the data schools collect isn’t for public consumption it’s very difficult to get info from the schools.

Oh yes, that's undoubtedly true. I was able to get it for professional reasons, I guess maybe one could get it via a Freedom of Information Act request?

The schools only use it when it suits their purposes! Which brings us back to @user149799568's valid point about it being propaganda rather than data. But the raw undoctored data does exist – somewhere!

I disagree.

In the grammar system the kids who just miss the cut are disadvantaged, especially if they come from less well off families who couldn't afford tutoring. Or even kids who aren't entered because their parents aren't organised enough

Nobody can argue with this, undoubtedly this is the cohort who suffer most under the selective system. However in Kent there is movement at 13 and 16.

In higher education the brightest are well looked after by Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick, Bristol, whoever
Again this is inarguably, however a system that only teaches to your potential at 18 will have huge wastage before that point. DS was "upclassed" in yr4 to a mixed 5/6 class. He spent 3 years effectively doing the yr6 curriculum three times. Had he gone to the local comp there would have been no setting for yr7 and they described to us how it would be spent "consolidating the basics" eg: the same yr 6 work for a 4th time. At his SS they effectively "skipped" yr7 maths. Had he had to do that work for a 4th time he would have almost certainly disengaged. FWIW in yr 13 he is "bored" he has completed his 4 A-level syllabus and can't wait to go to one of the Univesities you mentioned

In work the brightest most qualified get the best jobs with the best pay

In my experienced those with the greatest naked ambition get the greatest rewards. University Professors weren't brilliantly paid last time I checked.

The less bright end up sometimes with highly responsible jobs for very low pay (nursery workers for example)

But some vocational jobs are highly paid, electricians, plumbers, HGV drivers. Many people from this type of background go on to run their own businesses and make a fortune.

I guess for me, if people really thought the grammar system was 'fair' they'd be happy to enter children to the 11+ completely untutored (whether paid or by parent). But generally they're not. So they must believe that the 'non-grammar' isn't as good.

[quote TizerorFizz]@thing47
Actually James Corden went to both. Probably transferred at 16. The Misbourne always had the better 6th form. First secondary to have one.[/quote]
Ah, that makes sense. Around here Sixth Forms offering academic A levels (as opposed to more vocational routes such at HNDs and BTECs) used to be fairly uncommon in secondary modern schools so as you say The Misbourne was ahead of the game..

DD's school did split GCSEs when she was there, ie half in Y10 and half in Y11, but have abandoned that approach owning to its inherent flaws.

Ultimately I guess I don't care if Jimmy Bright isn't massively extended up to y11 in school. He can still come out with straight 9s, and then go on to be extended at A levels, degree, PhD. Or he can study extra things out of school, or do extension work in some lessons

But he will be bored and unhappy without a peer group or does that not matter either ?

It sounds as if your DS wasn't at all well served at primary, plus the school he didn't go to is pretty unusual in not setting for maths in y7. Almost every school I see discussed on MN sets at least for maths in y7.

Schools should be able to extend the brightest sideways without just pushing ahead. There are whole swathes of maths areas that aren't in GCSE at all that a bright youngster could be directed at, for example different bases, or investigating patterns of prime numbers or whatever.

@TeenPlusCat

I guess for me, if people really thought the grammar system was 'fair' they'd be happy to enter children to the 11+ completely untutored (whether paid or by parent). But generally they're not. So they must believe that the 'non-grammar' isn't as good.

Most people who are strong supporters of the grammar school system assume that their children will get into a grammar school. That's the long and the short of it. You don't find many parents calling for more secondary moderns…

Oh that old chestnut "greater depth".
Neither of my Dd's schools set for maths in year 7. Dd is doing GCSE maths in a non set class.

I picked up maths v. quickly and wasn't much stretched in maths lessons in my selective school, even at A level.

But I was stretched in other lessons.

An exceptionally bright all-rounder is more like top 1 or 2 %, not top 10%. So yes, do schools for them if the population is big enough.

I agree he was not well served by the "teaching to test" for the yr 6 SAT s (X3). However why not push ahead ? Particularly in maths where little maturity is needed, just attention and cognition.

@Neurodiversitydoctor

Ultimately I guess I don't care if Jimmy Bright isn't massively extended up to y11 in school. He can still come out with straight 9s, and then go on to be extended at A levels, degree, PhD. Or he can study extra things out of school, or do extension work in some lessons

But he will be bored and unhappy without a peer group or does that not matter either ?

It does matter, but it doesn't matter as much as increasing opportunities for the vast majority.

Something which benefits the top 10% (or whatever percentage) at the cost of disadvantaging the other 90% is not a model we should be encouraging.

@Neurodiversitydoctor

Oh that old chestnut "greater depth". Neither of my Dd's schools set for maths in year 7. Dd is doing GCSE maths in a non set class.

In a comp, in a non-streamed band? So potentially teaching grade 9s with grade 2s&3s?

(I didn't say greater depth, I said extend to areas outside the curriculum.)

No Dd is an non SS grammar. She wants to move to SS for sixth form as there won't be enough girls doing further maths (nearly all Kent grammars are single sex).

Something which benefits the top 10% (or whatever percentage) at the cost of disadvantaging the other 90% is not a model we should be encouraging

It doesn't disadvantage the other 90% though does it ? It disadvantages the next 20% who have fewer opportunities. The least able 10% are likely to be getting additional support regardless.

Dd would have got into the SS had she been male. She missed it by 20 marks, I think she would have been better served in the SS (rather than the regular grammar)

Possibly also had she been Summer born. The system is not perfect.